To history archive

Zoning history (1989)

by Steve Vaughn, Morningside Newsletter, Summer 1989

My tenure with the MLPA Board of Directors and, specifically, with the Zoning Committee has ended. Steve Robertson, a member of the Committee for the past three years is the new chairperson. The Committee in its current form is entering its fifth year of existence; Steve is the third chairperson. As a "charter" member of the Committee, and among the last of the original members, I wanted to review its activities and identify what I believe has been its strengths and weaknesses. This article, therefore, will be a departure from my previous articles by blending fact and personal opinion. 

Prior to 1985, zoning issues were reviewed by one or two people on the MLPA Board of Directors. Based on their experience they would lead the discussions and make recommendations to the full Board. Often, Board meetings were exclusively devoted to zoning issues. In addition, personal time constraints had the practical effect of limiting the ability to thoroughly review all zoning issues to only the more controversial or high profile proposals. In an effort to more thoroughly review all zoning issues, large and small, and to limit zoning discussions before the full Board, the Zoning Committee was created with Ron Robinson as the first chairperson. The Committee was to be responsible for reviewing all zoning, variance and special exception requests. It established procedures for notifying neighbors of pending requests, established regular meeting times and locations and assigned committee members to review each proposal. The Committee was initially comprised of eight members with seven from different areas of the neighborhood. The Committee was expanded later to include a member to monitor businesses and a legal advisor for a total of ten members. 

Since its inception, the Committee has reviewed virtually all zoning issues requested within the neighborhood. By far the most common requests have been setback variances to put garages in back yards (either new or rebuilt) and special exceptions to put larger fences in front and rear yards. Other requests have been variances to change or expand nonconforming houses such as duplexes or triplexes, paving front yards such as circular driveways or parking pads, allowing additions such as porches or decks to extend into side or rear yard setbacks. In addition, much of the new housing built in the neighborhood have requested variances to build closer to the street than normally allowed. These issues were the majority of what the Committee has reviewed over the past four years. Rezonings, while having the highest profile, were small in number. Some of the most prominent proposed rezonings have been (1) the new development off Wellbourne, (2) new housing on Courtney, (3) the new R-LC designation on Monroe Drive, (4) the proposed change from residential to commercial to expand Highland Park, (5) the proposal to build apartments on property owned by Morningside Baptist Church and (6) the proposal to change from commercial to industrial on property owned by Egleston Hopsital on Johnson Road. Of these six we were successful in all but one and our defeat was in Superior Court, not with the City of Atlanta.

The Zoning Committee has brought a new consistency to reviewing proposals; it is more likely to review proposals based on their merit and impact on the neighborhood than be influenced by who is submitting the proposal or its aesthetics. The diversity of Committee members has brought forth divergent opinions which is critical to the success of the review process. The Committee has heightened the awareness of zoning issues; phone calls to me have been steadily increasing. Not only do I get complaint calls, but, increasingly I am receiving advice calls asking how to go through the process.

Ironically, the success of the Zoning Committee may contribute to its biggest weakness; the failure to get more people motivated about the small issues. Generally, only Committee members have taken the time or made the effort to appear before the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). Applicants have begun to get more organized and appear before the BZA with supporters and, consequently, we have lost some cases. The neighborhood needs to have a core group of "zoning active" members willing to show up at City Hall meetings and NPU meetings to support the neighborhood's views. The Committee needs to do more outreach to  contact and recruit these type of people.

One final observation is the growing divergence of opinion on zoning matters with the neighborhood, particularly as it relates to property variances such as fences, additions, and setback encroachments. Some people believe that they should be able to do with their property what they want, particularly if their immediate neighbors have no objection. For example, should the neighborhood support parking pads in front yards or six or eight foot high fences adjacent to streets? Should it make a difference if an applicant offers attractive landscaping to minimize the visual impact of front yard parking or should we consider whether an eight foot fence will be chain link or cedar? To date, the Committee has generally not placed much emphasis on such aesthetics but has focused on the precedent setting potential and the hardship imposed on the applicant if the request in not granted. I have endorsed and supported this approach.

Zoning issues are of tremendous importance to the neighborhood. Get involved in these issues, express your opinion to your Board and Committee members. Help them forge a united and cohesive approach to zoning. I believe the Committee has done a tremendous job over the past four years and will continue that tradition under new leadership. They deserve your thanks and your support.

To history archive